4.6 Article

Comparison of the treatment performances of blast furnace slag-based and gravel-based vertical flow wetlands operated identically for domestic wastewater treatment in Turkey

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 187-200

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.10.002

Keywords

vertical flow constructed wetland; domestic wastewater treatment; nutrient removal; gravel; blast furnace granulated slag

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In 2001, to foster the practical development of constructed wetlands (CWs) used for domestic wastewater treatment in Turkey, vertical subsurface flow constructed wetlands (30 m(4)(4)(2 of each) were implemented on the campus of the METU, Ankara, Turkey. The main objective of the research was to quantify the effect of different filter media on the treatment performance of vertical flow wetlands in the prevailing climate of Ankara. Thus, a gravel-filled wetland and a blast furnace granulated iron slag-filled wetland were operated identically with primarily treated domestic wastewater (3 m3 d-1) at a hydraulic loading rate of 0.100 m d-1, intermittently. Both of the wetland cells were planted with Phraginites australis. According to the first year results, average removal efficiencies for the slag and gravel wetland cells were as follows: total suspended solids (TSS) (63% and 59%) chemical oxygen demand (COD) (47% and 44%), NH)(+-N (88% and 53%) total nitrogen (TN) (44% and 39%), PO)3--P (44% and 1%) and total phosphorus (TP) (45% and 4%). The treatment performances of the slag-filled wetland were better than that of the gravel-filled wetland in terms of removal of phosphorus and production of nitrate. Since this study was a pioneer for implementation of subsurface constructed wetlands in Turkey using local sources, it has proved that this eco-technology could also be used effectively for water quality enhancement in Turkey. 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available